Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1887-03-17
NEVADA WATER LAW.
A Communication frCm Judge
wells ON the Subject.

| CARSON CITY March 10th, 1881
EDITOR MORNING APPEAL: Un-
der the caption. The Doom of Ri
parianism" you publish an editorial
in your issue of the 18th instant,
which, though not intended so to
do, does injustice to our worthy SUI
preme Court. And as you and l
had some conversation on that sub
iect, on Monday last, what I then
| SAID may have had tendency to
mislead you, as / was not then
aware of that Courts opinion in the
case of Jones We. Adams. filed April
l, 1885. In this case the third and
fifth Findings of Fact" in the
Lower Court were as follows: Sd,
That the plaintiff, Joseph Jones, is
the owner of usufruct in the wat
ers of SAID stream, and that he and
his grantors first appropriated and
used, and that he is the owner, by
right of appropriation and use, Of
seven tenths part of all the water
customarily flowing in said stream;
that the plaintiff, Jos. Jones, is en-
titled to, use, as the first appropri-
ator, upon the said land, upon each
and every part thereof, seven tenths
of all the waters customarily flow
ing in said Sierra Greek, and Is en-
titled to divert the said water from
the said stream upon his said land
by means Of fumes, bitches or
otherwise; and to use the same up
on his said land for the irrigation
thereof, and to use so much of the
said seven tenths of said stream, as
is necessary for his stock and do
mestic purposes.
2. Adams is the owner of usu-
fruct in the waters Of said stream,
and that he and his grantors in the
year 1860 appropriated and used,
aud that he is the owner by right
of appropriation and use, of three
tenths part of all the water custom
arily flowing in said stream; and
that said defendant Is entitled to
use, as the first appropriation, upon
his said land. and upon such and
and every part thereof, three tenths
of all the water customarily flowing
In Sierra Greek, and is entitled TO
divert the said water from said
stream upou said land by means of
fumes, bitches or otherwise; and to
use so much of the said three
tents part of said stream. as is he
cessary for his stock and domestic
purposes.
The judgement in the above
cause was for the defendant, in the
Court below, and was affirmed by
the Supreme Court on appeal. The
action was prosecuted by the plain
tiff to maintain riparian proprietor
ship, and it's incidental ris ht'to the
water, and invoked the doctrine of
Van Sickle VS. haines, & New, 249)
as decisive of his rights.
In concluding the opinion, and
affirming the judgment, the Su-
preme Court said: 1t necessarily
follows from the views We have ex-
pressed, and from the doctrines an
nounced in the authorities we have
cited, that the Court (below) did
not err in rendering It's judgment
and decree upon the fuoIngs In re-
latisn to prior appropriation, The
case of Van Sickle vs.. Aaines, in
so far as the same is in conflict
with the views herein expressed
is hereby overruled. The judy
ment of the District Court Is af
tirmed'
The printed opinion is in Hon.
Chas. +. Bieknell's Office scrap
book, but not yet In volume.
| am glad to say that, the case OF
Van Sickle W.. Haines is over-ruled
by that vi Jones vs.. Adams, as to
riparian rights; aud that our entire
Supreme Court has aided in The
Doom of Riparianism," in Sage
land. L. ii. WELLS.